Books about the European air war

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

As an unbeliever in most Fighter pilots claims, I think you need to recheck your use of Christopher Shore's books to support your arguements.

He makes a point in his later books about not trusting 100% in anyones claims and in an article about the AVG seriously puts a question about some og their claims.

It would be interesting to see a list of Marseille's victims on his great day.

Read what was written, the SA and Aussies lost many more planes that day, in those areas then he claimed

plus that is the whole point of most of Shores work, is getting the details from both sides

also, remember, most nations, were very "bad" about admitting they had lost anything, a plane that get hits, is in flames and seen going down, is a kill, the pilot crashes it, and they come out and pull the junk away, that wasn't listed a loss or a plane shot down, the pilot had to crash while coming in to land

now, what gets odd, is the Russian Front, where everybody wants to say, the Ge Pilots didn't get that many kills and they were overclaiming, but the Russians admit to losing more planes then the Ge Claim to have shot down

for the AVG, that can get a little ruffer, as most statements now, are about "kills" that they could find, anything that went down in the deep jungle, or the water, can't be counted, as they couldn't find them

[DBS]

A very good book on 205 Group's 1944 bombing and mining campaign vs Romania is From Darkness to Light, by Patrick MacDonald. He was the British Defence Attache in Bucharest in the 90s, with the duty of wreath laying at the cemeteries, and this got him interested in researching the RAF ops; including aircrew recalling night mining runs down the Danube at 50 feet in a Liberator, with the waist gunners engaging the flak on the river banks. Also a lot in it on the POW experiences of those downed.

[Howard Mitchell]

For Bomber Command I would recommend:

1. Anything by Martin Middlebrooke, who has written excellent books on battles or single raids.
2. Bomber Command 1939-1945 by Richard Overy. Out of print but very good at showing what Bomber Command achieved. (Overy has a 500 page paperback entitled The Bombing War coming out next year which looks promising).
3. If your wallet stretches that far, the four volumes of the British Official History The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany are still the most in-depth study of Bomber Command, almost entirely based on primary sources.

For the Eastern Front Andrew Brookes has written a useful single volume history, Air War Over Russia.

I personally think Crister Bergstrom's Black Cross Red Star books are over-rated. While they cover the whole eastern front they do so in fairly rigid time slots, and at the rate they are being published I doubt the series will ever be finished. The four separate volumes he has written since on the air campaigns of Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Kursk and Bagration are well worth reading. The level of day-by-day detail they contain varies considerably. The last on the war from June 1944 to its end covers a huge theatre and nearly a year, but the volume on Kursk looks at a battle lasting less than a month on a 250 km front. They have also been written as stand-alone volumes, useful if you only want one but it does mean that each volume has to summarise the preceding ones to set the scene.

The Most Dangerous Enemy by Stephen Bungay would be my recommendation for a single volume history of the Battle of Britain.

[Howard Mitchell]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

now, what gets odd, is the Russian Front, where everybody wants to say, the Ge Pilots didn't get that many kills and they were overclaiming, but the Russians admit to losing more planes then the Ge Claim to have shot down

I don't know about the Soviets loosing more aircraft (in air-to-air combat?) than the Germans claimed to have shot down, but IIRC Bergstrom mentions in his book on the air battle over Kursk that the Germans would sometimes fail to note an aircraft lost as being shot down because they were keen to keep up their units kill:loss ratio, whereas the Soviets would often record one lost in an accident as being destroyed due to enemy action - because there was a real risk that writing off an aircraft in a flying accident would be seem as an act of anti-Soviet sabotage with potentially leathal results for the pilot concerned.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge


Read what was written, the SA and Aussies lost many more planes that day, in those areas then he claimed

plus that is the whole point of most of Shores work, is getting the details from both sides

Yup, and it's written clearly enough that one can establish a system by which claims are seperated from what is verified. Its given me a good idea on estimated losses for a number of theaters, including Burma.

also, remember, most nations, were very "bad" about admitting they had lost anything, a plane that get hits, is in flames and seen going down, is a kill, the pilot crashes it, and they come out and pull the junk away, that wasn't listed a loss or a plane shot down, the pilot had to crash while coming in to land

Yup.....its also worth noting that in more than one situation, claiming by various units/nations at times could be very accurate. On reported hits and claims, i've lost count of the number of times an eyewitness had described what would appear to have been an undisputable kill (plane exploded.....plane hit the water....plane hit the ground and exploded) only to have the research later show that the unit's records indicate that all planes returned safely.

now, what gets odd, is the Russian Front, where everybody wants to say, the Ge Pilots didn't get that many kills and they were overclaiming, but the Russians admit to losing more planes then the Ge Claim to have shot down

There were several instances where German claims were actually closely mirrored by Soviet records. While the Eastern Front combat is too massive and chaotic to ever get a Shores like day by day accounting, Bergman's books are filled with alot of good data on losses by summary and by specific periods. Worth the cost for me. Currently reading Vol II with Vol III on order.

for the AVG, that can get a little ruffer, as most statements now, are about "kills" that they could find, anything that went down in the deep jungle, or the water, can't be counted, as they couldn't find them

I recently purchased Dan Ford's book on the AVG to compare with Shores. Unsuprisingly, i found the numbers to be close. Shores's book was much better organized though.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Howard Mitchell


I don't know about the Soviets loosing more aircraft (in air-to-air combat?) than the Germans claimed to have shot down, but IIRC Bergstrom mentions in his book on the air battle over Kursk that the Germans would sometimes fail to note an aircraft lost as being shot down because they were keen to keep up their units kill:loss ratio, whereas the Soviets would often record one lost in an accident as being destroyed due to enemy action - because there was a real risk that writing off an aircraft in a flying accident would be seem as an act of anti-Soviet sabotage with potentially leathal results for the pilot concerned.

On June 22, 1941 German reports estimated they had destroyed 1,849 aircraft on the ground...an amazing figure which was doubted by high up German authorities. Needless to say when wrecks were counted...the figure exceeded 2000, which stunned everyone even more.

Soviet sources ended up confirming most of the German claims that days....curiously enough, Soviet sources listed 336 aerial losses which exceeded the German claims which were for 322.